This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

Re: What do you consider false advertising? Is this?

Of course, where this becomes semantically questionable is that they're aiming that kind of marketing at uninformed people who believe it's possible to eat "chemical free" food…

I'm fairly sure that at least in my life, I've come across an advertisement for something that was touted as “chemical-free”. This is, of course, quite absurd. All matter is chemical. Even an “empty” container, full of plain air, would be full of chemicals, as air itself is a mix of chemicals. The only way you could have a container of chemical-free product would be if that container contained a complete vacuum.

The five great lies of the Left Wrong:
We can be Godless and free. • “Social justice” through forced redistribution of wealth. • Silencing religious opinions counts as “diversity”. • Freedom without moral and personal responsibility. • Civilization can survive the intentional undermining of the family.

Re: What do you consider false advertising? Is this?

Originally Posted by SlevinKelevra

In other words, what if the product had 1 ppm benzene.

Could they call it "organic solvent free"

One thing that I learned during my time in the food industry is that a product can be billed as “100% X” even if it has up to 2% of stuff in it other than X. Take a look at the “ingredients” section of the label of any juice or juice blend product that says, on the label that it is 100% juice. You'll see a list of the juices that it contains, and then after that, you'll probably find wording to the effect of “Contains less than 2% of the following…”, and then a list of vitamins, additives, preservatives, and such, that collectively are less than 2% of the entire product.

The five great lies of the Left Wrong:
We can be Godless and free. • “Social justice” through forced redistribution of wealth. • Silencing religious opinions counts as “diversity”. • Freedom without moral and personal responsibility. • Civilization can survive the intentional undermining of the family.

Re: What do you consider false advertising? Is this?

Originally Posted by WCH

Many companies flat out lie about what's in their product. For those who might be sensitive to certain ingredients, buyer beware.

Any company that did that with a chemical to which there are any substantial number of people who are sensitive would be begging to get sued into oblivion. Anyone who had a bad reaction to a chemical in a product that the label clearly denied was present would have a very solid case for such a lawsuit against the manufacturer of that product.

On that basis, I am going to call solid digestive waste from a male bovine on your claim. I think any company that did engage in the practice which you allege would not be able to remain in business around all the lost lawsuits that would result.

The five great lies of the Left Wrong:
We can be Godless and free. • “Social justice” through forced redistribution of wealth. • Silencing religious opinions counts as “diversity”. • Freedom without moral and personal responsibility. • Civilization can survive the intentional undermining of the family.

Re: What do you consider false advertising? Is this?

Originally Posted by SmokeAndMirrors

*puts on nerd hat*

In all likelihood, the salt is not acting as a preservative. The concentration of salt required to have any meaningful preservative effect is absolutely enormous (over 10% for bacteria, and even higher for mold), and it would destroy the edibility of just about any food. It'd be worse than drinking soy sauce straight (only 6% salt).

Not even traditional salted meat is being preserved with salt. It's being preserved with a combination of dehydration (which the salt does aid with) and acid.

So, they are not being dishonest. It is basically impossible for them to be using enough salt to preserve the food. If it is dehydrated, salt may have aided in the process of drying, but it is not salt in and of itself that is preserving it. In all probability, the salt is mostly there for taste.

Re: What do you consider false advertising? Is this?

Originally Posted by Bob Blaylock

Any company that did that with a chemical to which there are any substantial number of people who are sensitive would be begging to get sued into oblivion. Anyone who had a bad reaction to a chemical in a product that the label clearly denied was present would have a very solid case for such a lawsuit against the manufacturer of that product.

On that basis, I am going to call solid digestive waste from a male bovine on your claim. I think any company that did engage in the practice which you allege would not be able to remain in business around all the lost lawsuits that would result.

Unless said company is in China. :\

Here's an example of chemicals use by many food companies where all they did was change the name. [I happen to be sensitive]